Cheap Shots

Just as there are several systems for placing values on individual chess pieces, there seems to be a system - at least in some people's minds - for placing a value on moves or actions.

For instance, going for a draw by threefold repetition is said to be, in some quarters, a cheap shot - worth about 1s/3d (in old money).

Presumably, achieving checkmate by double check and promotion - with only say 4 pieces left on the board - and one move ahead of a forced mate against you - would be worth the full guinea.

Are there any other moves/actions that are making chess the game of peasants - rather than the game of kings.

I only find threefold repitition to be cheap when the opponent is doing it to me.  Otherwise, it's very stylish. 

---

So we need an exchange rate mechanism: the value depends on whether you're buying or selling.

I guess there is no reason to point out that it takes both players to do the repetition of moves to get the draw-- yeah, it's the other guy's fault

---

haha.

---

No.  Sometimes one player has no other legal moves. 

just as it takes two to make a contract, it takes two to make a chess game, and I submit, afafbouardi, that a player can always resign with dignity intact, in the manner of the Kings, rather than submit to the somewhat proletariat condition of repeating the position 3 times.    My opponents always have the honorable resignation available to them, unfortunately (for me) not all of them realize that in time.

 

    I think musicalhair has it quite right - it is invariably the other guy's fault, and a cheap shot if he claims the draw from a losing position.   If I do it, (also from a losing position), it is a rather elegant ending to an otherwise quite fine game.

---

Anyhow...consider the following game...

 

I'm not saying my opponent did anything wrong or undignified, but I certainly didn't want the draw...yet what choice did I have in this?

Hey AfafBouardi, I think the example you show is excellent.  If you really had a wining position, then make a different move and get on with the win.  If you had made the different move you'd have lost.  That is why there is a difference between an advantage and a win, not all advantages can be converted into wins.

 

Check this out:

Capablanca's postion was already lost, the cute combination didn't change that.  I think we have to make a distinction between a win, a winning position, an advantage and a tactic or weakness in a position that leads to a check mate or perpetual check or something that refutes what otherwise appears to be winning.  Some of the best wins in chess history came out of losing positions.  How many games filled with sacrifices have we seen end in wins for the player that tossed away all his material for the pretty checkmate, only for someone to come along-- either right there at the post mortem, or years later in some book-- and refute the whole line?

Maybe we need to put winning on a higher plane of existence than just "better" or "advantages".  After all it a game, but in a sense it is also life-- the only justice there is in any of it is the justice you diligently enforce.

I still wouldn't say I was in a position to "resign".  I would have been more clever to trade down at worst... and yes, I walked into that mistake so he deserves the draw - agreed.  I didn't even notice the possible draw...again my haste makes waste. 

Going back to the original draw question...no, I wouldn't say it took two of us to choose to repeat movements leading to a draw...I responded with the only legal move available.

---

After I posted I asked myself "would he have lost had me made a different move and broke/prevented the repetition?"  I asked but didn't answer it

 

The key-- to so much in this and really everything is " I didn't even notice the possible draw...again my haste makes waste." 

 

I think the position you shared above is really instructive.  I mean, a queen two squares away from the king?  Yeah, I've ignored it hoping it would go away too.  In hind sight throwing more checks and getting this might have sealed the deal:

 

That is all probably obvious now, but there is more than just the warning sign of "the queen is two squares from the king": the rook and the pawn are smothering the king.  I don't have that on my check list of what to look for before I plan moves, but -- and in all honestly-- the only thing on my check list now is "can I sac my queen for a fancy Tal-like victory" (hence my rating).

I've been surprised by the drastic drop of the resignation lately....

Must be time to invest in checkmates.

it must be a love, yo!

---

True. Resignations never generate must interest - except when they don't happen.

Another cheap shot, apparently, is making a move as a distraction from a trap one is setting.

Like The Blackburne shilling? yo!

Seems to me that when I am "losing", I would be well advised to look for a forced drawing line.

Also seems to me that when I am "winning", I would be well advised to look for a forced drawing line, too.

Gotta keep our eyes open, not only for winning combos and tactics, not only strategic advantages, but also for defensive resources for the opposition.

Tis part of the game...

---

Sound advice ... to have a contingency plan.

---

3. Kf1 Qf3+

I like cheap shots